Notes.

—Because an order of expropriation merely determines

the authority to exercise the power of eminent domain and the
propriety of such exercise, its issuance does not hinge on the
payment of just compensation. (Republic vs. Phil-Ville Development
Housing Corporation, 525 SCRA 776 [2007])
The power of eminent domain encompasses not only the taking
or appropriation of title to and possession of the expropriated
property but likewise covers even the imposition of a mere burden
upon the owner of the condemned property. Where the nature of the
easement practically deprives the owners of the property’s normal
beneficial use, notwithstanding the fact that the expropriator only
occupies the sub-terrain portion, it is liable to pay not merely an
easement fee but rather the full compensation for land. (National
Power Corporation vs. Ibrahim, 526 SCRA 149 [2007])
——o0o——

G.R. No. 160610. August 14, 2009. *

JUDELIO COBARRUBIAS, petitioner, vs. PEOPLE OF THE

PHILIPPINES, THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS
SPECIAL FORMER SECOND DIVISION, and HON. BONIFACIO
SANZ MACEDA, Acting Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Las
Piñas City, Branch 255, respondents.

Criminal Procedure; Appeals; Procedural Rules and Technicalities;

The rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their objective of
securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of every action and
proceeding; In this case, the Court finds the petitioner’s failure to implead
the People of the Philippines as respondent not so grave as to warrant
dismissal of the petition.—The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for
failure of petitioner to comply with the resolution directing him to implead
the People of the Phil-

_______________

* FIRST DIVISION.

78
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cobarrubias vs. People

ippines as respondent . The Court of Appeals held that the petition was
prosecuted manifestly for delay, which is a ground for dismissal under
Section 8, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court. However, Section 6, Rule 1 of the
Rules of Court also provides that rules shall be liberally construed in order
to promote their objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive
disposition of every action and proceeding. Thus, in several cases, the Court
has ruled against the dismissal of petitions or appeals based solely on
technicalities especially when there was subsequent substantial compliance
with the formal requirements. In this case, the Court finds the petitioner’s
failure to implead the People of the Philippines as respondent not so grave
as to warrant dismissal of the petition. After all, petitioner rectified his error
by moving for reconsideration and filing an Amended Petition, impleading
the People of the Philippines as respondent.
Judgments; Dispositive Portions; The general rule is that where there
is a conflict between the fallo, or the dispositive part, and the body of the
decision or order, the fallo prevails on the theory that the fallo is the final
order and becomes the subject of execution, while the body of the decision
merely contains the reasons or conclusions of the court ordering nothing,
but where one can clearly and unquestionably conclude from the body of the
decision that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the
decision will prevail.—The general rule is that where there is a conflict
between the fallo, or the dispositive part, and the body of the decision or
order, the fallo prevails on the theory that the fallo is the final order and
becomes the subject of execution, while the body of the decision merely
contains the reasons or conclusions of the court ordering nothing. However,
where one can clearly and unquestionably conclude from the body of the
decision that there was a mistake in the dispositive portion, the body of the
decision will prevail. Thus, in Spouses Rebuldea v. Intermediate Appellate
Court (155 SCRA 520 [1987]), the Court held that the trial court did not
gravely abuse its discretion when it corrected the dispositive portion of its
decision to make it conform to the body of the decision, and to rectify the
clerical errors which interchanged the mortgagors and the mortgagee.

PETITION for review on certiorari of the resolutions of the Court of

Appeals.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

79

VOL. 596, AUGUST 14, 2009 79

Cobarrubias vs. People

  Jose Atendido Parungo for petitioner.

  The Solicitor General for respondents.
CARPIO, J.:

The Case

This is a petition for review1 of the Resolutions dated 10 March

2003 and 9 October 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP
No. 72315.

The Facts

In 1994, petitioner Judelio Cobarrubias was charged with

Frustrated Homicide (Criminal Case No. 94-5036), Homicide
(Criminal Case No. 94-5038), Violation of Section 261(Q) of the
Omnibus Election Code in relation to Section 32 of Republic Act
No. 7166 (Criminal Case No. 24-392), and Illegal Possession of
Firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Criminal Case No.
94-5037). Petitioner pleaded not guilty to all the charges and trial
followed.
On 20 March 2001, Presiding Judge Florentino M. Alumbres of
the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 255 (trial court),
issued an Order,2 the dispositive portion of which reads:

“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court rules that the
prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt in Criminal Cases Nos. 94-5036 and 94-5037, and these cases are
ordered DISMISSED.
Criminal Cases Nos. 94-5038 and 24392 should be set for further trial.
SO ORDERED.”3

_______________

1 Under Rule 45 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

2 Rollo, pp. 70-82.
3 Id., at p. 82.

80

80 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cobarrubias vs. People

The prosecution did not appeal the trial court’s Order. On 5 July
2001, petitioner filed with the trial court a Motion for Correction of
Clerical Error,4 alleging that in the dispositive portion of the Order,
Criminal Case No. 94-5038 should have been dismissed instead of
Criminal Case No. 94-5037, which should have been the case set for
further trial. Petitioner maintained that there was a typographical
error in the dispositive portion considering that in the body of the
Order, the trial court ruled that the prosecution failed to prove
beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of petitioner in the charges for
Homicide and Frustrated Homicide.
On 26 February 2002, respondent Acting Judge Bonifacio Sanz
Maceda5 denied the motion, holding that the alleged error was
substantial in nature which affected the very merit of the case.
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which respondent Judge
denied on 23 July 2002.
On 21 August 2002, petitioner filed with the Court of Appeals a
Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition with Prayer for a Temporary
Restraining Order or Writ of Preliminary Injunction. Petitioner
sought to set aside the Orders dated 26 February 2002 and 23 July
2002 of respondent Judge.
On 23 August 2002, the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition
for failure to submit with the petition a clear duplicate original or a
certified true copy of the assailed Order dated 23 July 2002, and for
failure of petitioner’s counsel to indicate his current official receipt
number and date of payment of the current Integrated Bar of the
Philippines membership dues, pursuant to SC Bar Matter No. 287.6
Petitioner moved for reconsideration, which the Court of Appeals
granted. In a Resolution dated 11 December 2002,

_______________

4 CA Rollo, pp. 83-85.

5 It appears that Judge Florentino M. Alumbres, who issued the Order dated 20
March 2001, already retired and was substituted by Judge Bonifacio Sanz Maceda.
6 Rollo, p. 127.

81

VOL. 596, AUGUST 14, 2009 81

Cobarrubias vs. People

the Court of Appeals directed petitioner to implead the People of the

Philippines as respondent. On 10 March 2003, the Court of Appeals
dismissed the petition for failure of petitioner to comply with the
resolution.7 On 19 March 2003, petitioner filed an Omnibus Motion
for Reconsideration and Motion to Admit Amended Petition, which
the Court of Appeals dismissed. Hence, this petition.
The Issues
Petitioner contends that:

1. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS AND

REVERSIBLE ERROR IN DISMISSING THE PETITION ON THE
GROUND OF A TECHNICALITY, DESPITE THE PETITIONER’S
COMPLIANCE WITH ITS RESOLUTION DATED 11
DECEMBER 2002.
 2. THE COURT OF APPEALS COMMITTED SERIOUS
REVERSIBLE ERROR IN NOT GIVING DUE COURSE TO THE
PETITION CONSIDERING THE MERITS THEREOF AND THE
SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS OF THE PETITIONER.8

The Ruling of the Court

We find the petition meritorious.
Compliance with the Formal Requirements
The Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for failure of
petitioner to comply with the resolution directing him to implead the
People of the Philippines as respondent . The Court of Appeals held
that the petition was prosecuted manifestly

_______________

7 Id., at p. 32.
8 Id., at p. 16.

82

82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cobarrubias vs. People

for delay, which is a ground for dismissal under Section 8, Rule 65

of the Rules of Court.9
 However, Section 6, Rule 1 of the Rules of Court also provides
that rules shall be liberally construed in order to promote their
objective of securing a just, speedy and inexpensive disposition of
every action and proceeding. Thus, in several cases, the Court has
ruled against the dismissal of petitions or appeals based solely on
technicalities especially when there was subsequent substantial
compliance with the formal requirements.10
 

_______________

9 Section 8 of Rule 65, as amended by A.M. No. 07-7-12-SC, reads:

SEC. 8. Proceedings after comment is filed.—After the comment or other
pleadings required by the court is filed, or the time for the filing thereof has expired,
the court may hear the case or require the parties to submit memoranda. If, after such
hearing or filing of memoranda or upon the expiration of the period for filing, the
court finds that the allegations of the petition are true, it shall render judgment for
such relief to which the petitioner is entitled.
However, the court may dismiss the petition if it finds the same without merit
or prosecuted manifestly for delay, or if the questions raised therein are too
unsubstantial to require consideration. In such event, the court may award in favor of
the respondent treble costs solidarily against the petitioner and counsel, in addition to
subjecting counsel to administrative sanctions under Rules 139 and 139-B of the
Rules of Court.
The Court may impose motu proprio, based on res ipsa loquitur, other disciplinary
sanctions or measures on erring lawyers for patently dilatory and unmeritorious
petitions for certiorari. (Emphasis supplied)
10 Honda Cars Makati, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 165359, 14 July 2008,
558 SCRA 209; Tan v. Planters Products, Inc., G.R. No. 172239, 28 March 2008, 550
SCRA 287; Heirs of Victoriana Villagracia v. Equitable Banking Corporation, G.R.
No. 136972, 28 March 2008, 550 SCRA 60; Caña v. Evangelical Free Church of the
Philippines, G.R. No. 157573, 11 February 2008, 544 SCRA 225; Jaro v. Court of
Appeals, 427 Phil. 532; 377 SCRA 282 (2002).

83

VOL. 596, AUGUST 14, 2009 83

Cobarrubias vs. People

In this case, the Court finds the petitioner’s failure to implead the
People of the Philippines as respondent not so grave as to warrant
dismissal of the petition. After all, petitioner rectified his error by
moving for reconsideration and filing an Amended Petition,
impleading the People of the Philippines as respondent.
In Vda. de Manguerra v. Risos,11 where the petition for certiorari
filed with the Court of Appeals failed to implead the People of the
Philippines as an indispensable party, the Court held:

“It is undisputed that in their petition for certiorari before the CA,
respondents failed to implead the People of the Philippines as a party
thereto. Because of this, the petition was obviously defective. As provided
in Section 5, Rule 110 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, all
criminal actions are prosecuted under the direction and control of the public
prosecutor. Therefore, it behooved the petitioners (respondents herein) to
implead the People of the Philippines as respondent in the CA case to enable
the Solicitor General to comment on the petition.
However, this Court has repeatedly declared that the failure to
implead an indispensable party is not a ground for the dismissal of an
action. In such a case, the remedy is to implead the non-party claimed
to be indispensable. Parties may be added by order of the court, on
motion of the party or on its own initiative at any stage of the action
and/or such times as are just. If the petitioner/plaintiff refuses to
implead an indispensable party despite the order of the court, the latter
may dismiss the complaint/petition for petitioner’s/
plaintiff’s failure to comply.”12 (Emphasis supplied)

In this case, the Court of Appeals should have granted

petitioner’s motion for reconsideration and given due course to the
petition in view of petitioner’s subsequent compliance by filing an
Amended Petition, impleading the People of the
_______________

11 G.R. No. 152643, 28 August 2008, 563 SCRA 499.

12 Id., at pp. 504-505.

84

84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cobarrubias vs. People

Philippines as respondent. Technicalities may be set aside when the

strict and rigid application of the rules will frustrate rather than
promote justice.13

Conflict Between the Fallo and the Body of the Order

Instead of remanding the case to the Court of Appeals, the Court

will resolve the issue raised by petitioner in order to prevent further
delay in the resolution of the case.
Petitioner’s main contention is that there is a clerical error in the
fallo or the dispositive portion of Judge Alumbres’ Order dated 20
March 2001, which should have dismissed Criminal Case No. 94-
5038 instead of Criminal Case No. 94-5037, considering that in the
body of the order, the trial court ruled that the prosecution failed to
prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of petitioner in the charges
for Frustrated Homicide (Criminal Case No. 94-5036) and Homicide
(Criminal Case No. 94-5038). However, respondent Acting Judge
Maceda, who was assigned to the trial court after Judge Alumbres
retired, denied petitioner’s motion for correction, holding that the
alleged error was substantial in nature.
For a clearer understanding of the issue, the pertinent portions of
the Order dated 20 March 2001 are hereunder quoted:

“On the first and second charges of Homicide (Criminal Case No. 94-
5038) and Frustrated Homicide (Criminal Case No. 94-5036), did the
prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in
killing Edwin S. Martinez and the wounding of Decampong “without
any just motive”?
To the mind of the Court, the prosecution failed in this regard.

_______________

13 Bautista v. Unangst, G.R. No. 173002, 4 July 2008, 557 SCRA 256; Enriquez v. Bank of
the Philippine Islands, G.R. No. 172812, 12 February 2008, 544 SCRA 590; Lanaria v. Planta,
G.R. No. 172891, 22 November 2007, 538 SCRA 79; National Power Corporation v.
Bongbong, G.R. No. 164079, 3 April 2007, 520 SCRA 290.

85
 VOL. 596, AUGUST 14, 2009 85
Cobarrubias vs. People

What is derogatory to the cases of the prosecution is the Resolution dated

July 7, 1994 of the Department of Justice issued after a thorough
preliminary investigation conducted by an investigating panel composed of
State Prosecutor Philip I. Kimpo and Prosecution Attorney Emelie Fe M.
delos Santos, duly approved by then Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R.
Zuño.
The pertinent portions of the said Resolution is quoted as follows:
x x x
x x x
“After hitting SI Martinez, respondent Cobarrubias, still seated,
pointed his gun towards agent Decampong and an exchange of gun
fire ensued leaving both of them wounded. Agent Decampong was
hit on his right shoulder while respondent suffered wound on his “left
thigh.” (p. 4 – Resolution).
It is, therefore, very clear that it was Decampong who first fired at the
accused from outside when he (accused) was seated inside his car. It is very
difficult to believe the story of the prosecution that the exchange of fire
between the accused and the NBI agents happened while the accused was
seated inside the car.
In fact, the Resolution of the Department of Justice attest to the fact that
the accused was not the aggressor.
Pertinent portion of the Resolution (Exh. “2,” “2-A” & “2-B,” 7/13/95
session) is quoted, thus:
 “There is no treachery in the instant case as respondent was not
the aggressor. Respondent did not attack the victim (Martinez) but
only fired at the latter upon seeing him approaching his car with a
gun in his hand, while announcing their being NBI agents and
advising respondent and his companion not to move. Hence, it cannot
be said that respondent employed means, methods or forms in the
execution of the crime which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution without risk to himself arising from the defense which the
offended party might make (RPC, Art. 14, par. 16). In other words,
for alevosia to apply, the killer must be the aggressor and he must
deliberately and consciously adopt and employ a non-risky mode of
execution that would insure the successful consummation of his
criminal act. As ruled by the High Court,

86

86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cobarrubias vs. People

there is no treachery if the killing was committed at the moment

(People vs. Gutierrez, 113 SCRA 155; People vs. de Castro, L-
38989, Oct. 29, 1982, 117 SCRA 1014; People vs. Magaddatu, L-
 36446, Sept. 9, 1983, 124 SCRA 594; or if the attack cannot be
sudden and unprovoked or unexpected (People v. Atienza, 115 SCRA
379 (1982); If no time was left for the accused to deliberate on the
mode of attack or to prepare for the manner by which he could kill
the deceased with the full assurance that it would be improbable or
hard for the latter to defend himself or retaliate (People vs. De Jesus,
L-58505, Nov. 19, 1982, 18 SCRA 516; Or the attack is unplanned
(People vs. Manalang, L-471-36-37, July 28, 1983, 123 SCRA 583).
Neither is there evident premeditation in this case for the same
reason that herein respondent was not the aggressor or attacker in the
shooting incident or “encounter.” Under the facts of the case, it is
clear that respondent never planned in killing the victim.
Therefore, he could not have cling to a supposed determination as
there was no determination at all to speak of.”
                                                     (P. 8 & 9 – Resolution dated
                                                     July 7, 1994, DOJ Emphasis
                                                     Supplied)
“Not being the aggressor,” it is apropos that the accused did not incite,
much less, provoke the shooting. Decampong admitted while being cross
examined that the accused “withdrew” or “ran away” after being hit on the
left thigh, which will fortify the conclusion that there was no unlawful
aggression on the part of the accused.
The elements of self-defense are (1) unlawful aggression on the part of
the victim; (2) reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or
repel it; and (3) lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person
defending himself. (People vs. Hubilla, Jr., 252 SCRA 471).
The unlawful aggression, by way of the sudden blocking of the car of the
accused, and the unexpected shot hitting the accused on the left thigh, came
from the agents. There was no sufficient provocation on the part of the
accused as he was merely inside his car when he was shot.

87

VOL. 596, AUGUST 14, 2009 87

Cobarrubias vs. People

In People versus Mallari, 212 SCRA 777, the Supreme Court ruled that
there can be no evident pre-meditation without proof of planning. Evident
pre-meditation must be established beyond reasonable doubt and must be
based on external acts which are evident, not merely suspected, and which
indicate deliberate planning. (People vs. Florida, 214 SCRA 227).
   Witness: (Norman Decampong)
“Together with Special Investigation [sic] Edwin Martinez, we ran
towards Doña Manuela Subdivision while the accused together with .
. . I was not able to notice the two companions ran away.”
 (P. 44 TSN, Nov. 3, 1994)
With respect to the charges of Illegal Possession of Firearms (P.D.
1866) and Violation of Election Code on Comelec Gun Ban (Sec. 261(q)
Election Code), the Court needs these charges to be disputed by
countervailing evidence of the accused. It is premature to rule on these
charges at the moment without any evidence to the contrary. Thus,
Criminal Cases Nos. 94-5038 and 24392 should be set for the reception
of the defense evidence.
x x x
It is aciomatic [sic] that the evidence for the prosecution must stand or
fall on its own merits and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weakness of the evidence for the defense (People vs. Lapinoso, G.R. No.
122507, Feb. 25, 1999). Proof beyond reasonable doubt is that degree of
proof which produces conviction in an unprecedented mind. In criminal
cases, the accused is entitled to an acquittal unless his guilt is shown beyond
doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt does not mean such a degree of
proof, as excluding possibility of error, produces absolute certainty (People
vs. Datukon Bansil, G.R. No. 120163, March 10, 1999).
  On the whole, the meager evidence for the prosecution casts serious
doubts as to the guilt of the accused. It does not pass the test of moral
certainty and is inefficient to rebut the constitutional presumption of
innocence.
WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court rules that the
prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the

88

88 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cobarrubias vs. People

accused beyond reasonable doubt in Criminal Cases Nos. 94-5036 and

94-5037, and these cases are ordered DISMISSED.
Criminal Cases Nos. 94-5038 and 24392 should be set for further
trial.
SO ORDERED.”14 (Emphasis supplied)

It is clearly stated in the body of the assailed Order that the trial
court held that the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable
doubt the guilt of petitioner for Homicide (Criminal Case No. 94-
5038) and Frustrated Homicide (Criminal Case No. 94-5036), thus:

“On the first and second charges of Homicide (Criminal Case No. 94-
5038) and Frustrated Homicide (Criminal Case No. 94-5036), did the
prosecution prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt in
killing Edwin S. Martinez and the wounding of Decampong “without any
just motive”?
To the mind of the Court, the prosecution failed in this regard.”15
(Emphasis supplied)

The trial court then proceeded to discuss the basis for such ruling.
As regards the two other charges for Illegal Possession of
Firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Criminal Case No.
94-5037) and Violation of Section 261(Q) of the Omnibus Election
Code in relation to Section 32 of Republic Act No. 7166 (Criminal
Case No. 24-392), the trial court held that it was still premature to
rule on these charges and that further evidence was needed, thus:

“With respect to the charges of Illegal Possession of Firearms (P.D. 1866)

and Violation of Election Code on Comelec Gun Ban (Sec. 261[q]
Election Code), the Court needs these charges to be disputed by
countervailing evidence of the accused. It is premature to rule on these
charges at the moment without any

_______________

14 Rollo, pp. 75-78, 81-82.

15 Id., at pp. 75-76.

89

VOL. 596, AUGUST 14, 2009 89

Cobarrubias vs. People

evidence to the contrary. Thus, Criminal Cases Nos. 94-5038 and 24392
should be set for the reception of the defense evidence.”16 (Emphasis
supplied)

However, the trial court inadvertently designated the wrong

criminal case number to the charge for Illegal Possession of
Firearms. Instead of Criminal Case No. 94-5037, the trial court
erroneously wrote Criminal Case No. 94-5038, which is the criminal
case number of the charge for Homicide.
Unfortunately, this error was repeated in the dispositive portion
of the Order, thus:

“WHEREFORE, in the light of the foregoing, the Court rules that the
prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable
doubt in Criminal Cases Nos. 94-5036 and 94-5037, and these cases are
ordered DISMISSED.
Criminal Cases Nos. 94-5038 and 24392 should be set for further
trial.
SO ORDERED.”17 (Emphasis supplied)

In the dispositive portion, the trial court erroneously dismissed

Criminal Case No. 94-5037 which refers to the charge for Illegal
Possession of Firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866, while
Criminal Case No. 94-5038 which refers to the charge for Homicide
was set for further trial.
The general rule is that where there is a conflict between the
fallo, or the dispositive part, and the body of the decision or order,
the fallo prevails on the theory that the fallo is the final order and
becomes the subject of execution, while the body of the decision
merely contains the reasons or conclusions of the court ordering
nothing.18 However, where one can clearly and unquestionably
conclude from the body of the decision that there was a mistake in
the dispositive portion, the body of the

_______________

16 Id., at p. 78.
17 Id., at p. 82.
18  PH Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 421 Phil. 821; 370 SCRA 155
(2001); Rosales v. Court of Appeals, 405 Phil. 638; 353 SCRA 179 (2001).

90

90 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Cobarrubias vs. People

decision will prevail.19 Thus, in Spouses Rebuldea v.

Intermediate Appellate Court,20 the Court held that the trial court did
not gravely abuse its discretion when it corrected the dispositive
portion of its decision to make it conform to the body of the
decision, and to rectify the clerical errors which interchanged the
mortgagors and the mortgagee.
In this case, considering the clear finding of the trial court that
the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of
petitioner in the charges for Homicide and Frustrated Homicide,
while the two other charges for Illegal Possession of Firearms and
Violation of the Omnibus Election Code require further evidence, it
is only just and proper to correct the dispositive portion to reflect the
exact findings and conclusions of the trial court. Thus, in accordance
with the findings of the trial court, Criminal Case No. 94-5036
(Frustrated Homicide) and Criminal Case No. 94-5038 (Homicide)
should be dismissed, while Criminal Case No. 94-5037 (Illegal
Possession of Firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866) and
Criminal Case No. 24-392 (Violation of Section 261(Q) of the
Omnibus Election Code in relation to Section 32 of Republic Act
No. 7166) should be set for further trial.
WHEREFORE, we GRANT the petition. The Resolutions dated
10 March 2003 and 9 October 2003 of the Court of Appeals in CA-
G.R. SP No. 72315 are REVERSED and SET ASIDE. The
dispositive portion of the Order dated 20 March 2001, of the
Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 255, is
CORRECTED to conform to the body of the Order by dismissing
Criminal Case No. 94-5036 (Frustrated Homicide) and Criminal
Case No. 94-5038 (Homicide), and setting for further trial Criminal
Case No. 94-5037 (Illegal Possession of

_______________
 19 Hipos, Sr. v. Honorable RTC Judge Teodoro A. Bay, G.R. Nos. 174813-15, 17
March 2009, 581 SCRA 675; Poliand Industrial Limited v. National Development
Company, G.R. Nos. 143866 and 143877, 22 August 2005, 467 SCRA 500.
20 239 Phil. 487; 155 SCRA 520 (1987).

91

VOL. 596, AUGUST 14, 2009 91

Cobarrubias vs. People

Firearms under Presidential Decree No. 1866) and Criminal Case

No. 24-392 (Violation of Section 261(Q) of the Omnibus Election
Code in relation to Section 32 of Republic Act No. 7166).
SO ORDERED.

Puno (C.J., Chairperson), Corona, Leonardo-De Castro and

Bersamin, JJ., concur.

Petition granted, resolutions reversed and set aside.

Notes.—While a decision need not be a complete recital of the

evidence presented, in order to effectively buttress the judgment
arrived at, it is imperative that a decision should not be simply
limited to the dispositive portion but must state the nature of the
case, summarize the facts with references to the record, and contain
a statement of the applicable laws and jurisprudence and the
tribunal’s assessments and conclusions on the case. (People vs.
Baring, Jr., 374 SCRA 696 [2002])
The dispositive portion or fallo of the decision is what actually
constitutes the judgment or resolution of the court that can be the
subject of execution. Where there is a conflict between the
dispositive portion of the decision and its body, the dispositive
portion controls irrespective of what appears in the body of the
decision. (B.E. San Diego, Inc. vs. Alzul, 524 SCRA 402 [2007])
——o0o——

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.